Axulus
Veteran Member
So more than ever, I'm seeing an extreme negative reaction to an interviewer who challenges and probes an interviewee in a very direct and forceful manner. Sometimes the way the interviewer asks the question is more from a devil's advocate postion, trying to steelman the opposite view. Sometimes the interviewer's reasoning isn't great. Imagine a creationist asking Richard Dawkins a question about evolution.
One example comes to mind: Don Lemon interviewing Elon Musk. Sure, one can say that Lemon had an agenda, but who cares? What matters is how well can Musk actually defend his position when challenged. Hopefully we can learn something in the process. And if Lemon's reasoning behind the question is flawed, all the more easier for Musk to refute it. But no! How dare Lemon ask flawed/biased/poorly reasoned questions. He has such an obvios agenda! I mean, like what the hell? What a bunch of snowflakes reacting this way!
Contrast this to the Joe Rogan and Lex Friedman approach, which is essentially just lobbing softball after softball at their guests, letting them speak at length, and rarely challenging them in any meaningful way. For me, this is intellectually boring and lazy. Rarely, if ever, do I learn about any counterperspectives to the guest's views, and how easy they are to refute (or not).
Why has this non-challenging style of interview become so popular and the challenging style so repulsive to a great many of people these days?
One example comes to mind: Don Lemon interviewing Elon Musk. Sure, one can say that Lemon had an agenda, but who cares? What matters is how well can Musk actually defend his position when challenged. Hopefully we can learn something in the process. And if Lemon's reasoning behind the question is flawed, all the more easier for Musk to refute it. But no! How dare Lemon ask flawed/biased/poorly reasoned questions. He has such an obvios agenda! I mean, like what the hell? What a bunch of snowflakes reacting this way!
Contrast this to the Joe Rogan and Lex Friedman approach, which is essentially just lobbing softball after softball at their guests, letting them speak at length, and rarely challenging them in any meaningful way. For me, this is intellectually boring and lazy. Rarely, if ever, do I learn about any counterperspectives to the guest's views, and how easy they are to refute (or not).
Why has this non-challenging style of interview become so popular and the challenging style so repulsive to a great many of people these days?